Ankit @ Jitendra and Another Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35870 of 2025

Ankit @ Jitendra And Another

.....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Prasad Mishra, Prakhar Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri N.K.Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 169 of 2024, under Section 108 BNS, Police Station Badausa, District Banda during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 24.10.2024. The first information report was lodged on 25.12.2024. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. As per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicants, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017) decided on 03.10.2024 and Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.08.2025. The applicants are in jail since 19.07.2025 having

¶10

BAIL No. 35870 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

no criminal history and in case they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.

¶13

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶14

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report was lodged belatedly. The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicants have remained confined for more than three months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicants, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicants Ankit @ Jitendra and Amit, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that they:

¶16